This week Nick speaks with his Library colleague Kikachukwu Oluonye about the UKRN Train the Trainer programme.

Like Nick, Kikachukwu is an Open Research Adviser based in the Library and also has a role with the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) as Open Research Coordinators and Administrator (ORCA).

As a member institution of UKRN, Kikachukwu would like to invite University of Leeds colleagues to apply to be part of the second cohort of the UKRN Train the Trainer programme. You'll need to be quick though as the deadline is next week, 17th September.

We also hear from Dr Scott Mclaughlin, Associate Professor in Composition and Music Technology based in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Cultures. Scott was a member of the first cohort last year and talks about open research from the perspective of Arts and Humanities, and as a practice researcher.

Episode highlights:

UKRN Train the Trainer Programme Overview: The University of Leeds joined the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) consortium in February 2024, participating in the Train the Trainer programme designed to create Open Research Training leads. The programme is open to professional services staff, researchers, research fellows, and PIs with free courses running from September through December.

Cross-disciplinary Challenges in Open Research: The conversation reveals how open research practices vary significantly across, even within, disciplines While traditional reproducibility concepts from psychology and other empirical disciplines don't directly translate to arts and humanities, there are valuable opportunities for interdisciplinary dialogue and adaptation of open research principles.

Practice Research and Open Scholarship: Dr. McLaughlin's work in experimental music composition demonstrates how practice-based research in the arts faces unique challenges around copyright, and making creative processes transparent while maintaining artistic integrity and commercial viability.

Institutional Support and Recognition: Programme participants receive certificates upon completion and the title of Open Research Training leads, with the initiative supported by Research England funding and led locally by Professor Daryl O'Connor as institutional lead.

Future Developments: The discussion touches on upcoming initiatives including the Enact project, led by the University of Westminster, to develop a national digital repository for practice research, and ongoing work to adapt open research principles across the diverse research landscape of Arts and Humanities at Leeds and beyond.

Episode links:

• Igbo Wikipedia
• The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN)
• PRAG-UK
• McLaughlin, Scott (2022) The Garden of Forking Paths. University of Leeds. [Dataset] https://doi.org/10.5518/1117
• Gelma, A,. Loken, E. (2013) The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time
• Westminster-led collaborative project receives funding to build data service for practice research
• Jackson, T., Knowles, C., McLaughlin, S. et al. (4 more authors) (2023) Sustaining Practice Assets for Research, Knowledge, Learning and Engagement (SPARKLE) : Final Report and Recommendations. Report. University of Leeds https://doi.org/10.48785/100/296

Welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, where in every episode we explore what is research culture and what should it be. You'll hear thoughts and opinions from a range of contributors to help you change research culture into what you want it to be.

Hello, um, uh, welcome to another episode of the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. My name is Nick Sheppard . I'm Open Research Adviser based here, um, in Research Services in the, at the University of Leeds. Um, and my episodes on the podcast, uh, tend to focus, um, on open research. So today I'm very pleased to be joined by my colleague and fellow Open Research Advisor, uh, Kikuchukwu Oluonye.

Uh, so welcome Kikuchukwu and, uh. looking forward to speaking to you.

Thank you, Nick. It's really lovely to be here.

And did I get your name right then? 'cause we, I suppose we should say I've practiced that a few times, haven't we? And I've got your, I can say your first name, but the surname...

I think you did amazing with both of them.

And well, before we start talking perhaps just to, 'cause we've been working together for a little over a year now.

That's right.

Uh, all aspects of open research. And, uh, recently we did, for example, um, an editathon or translation event, didn't we for wikipedia? And your first language is Igbo?

Yes, it is.

So you're from Nigeria?

Yes, I am. I'm from Delta State. From north local government of Delta State. So that's referred to the Igbo speaking part of Delta State, where we speak a dialect of Igbo called in Enuani .

Right. Well, I won't try to say that word but it was interesting, wasn't it?

'cause uh, it was, um, we've been doing a lot of work here that we'll talk about on the podcast another time. Yeah. On, uh, Wikimedia and Wikipedia. And that included translating Wikipedia into other languages. And you being an Igbo speaker, uh, you did some translation, um, uh, for an article into, into Igbo. Uh, just tell us quickly about your experience with that and how you found that.

My experience was quite interesting. I found that the translation itself, the automated translation was quite accurate as, except for the notations and the signs and symbols that should be in the words. But as an Igbo speaker, it was really, really exciting to see that there were barely any corrections to be made.

Um, I would say that that's really pleasant for central Igbo, but it did inspire me to want my own Wikipedia page for the Enuani speakers so that we could preserve our own dialect, which is significantly different from the general Igbo language.

Yeah. Well, obviously that is something we' ll talk about and as I say, I've got Lucy, our Wikimedian coming on the podcast soon, so we'll talk about that in a bit more detail.

But just finally, before we do move on to the UKRN work, we weren't totally sure of the word for snail as I recall. And you phoned your dad?

I did call my dad during the session because I was excited to know what we call it and he said, it's eloma. And that channeled my passion to actually wanting to create that Wikipedia page.

So it's absolutely useful. Yeah.

Yeah. So, and say one more time, it's called...

Eloma

so that's, uh, Igbo for snail. So that's very...

that's Enuani for snail.

Oh, that's Enuani, so what's Igbo for snail?

I've actually forgotten the Igbo word. I have to check that!

Okay. But that's the, yeah. Anyway, yeah,

that's, that's our own dialect for snail, which is significantly different from the original.

Okay. Well, um, you know, uh, we'll move on, I think to, uh, talking about, um, uh, open research, but thank you. Uh, perhaps tell us a little bit about, uh, UKRN, the UK Reproducibility Network. What's their sort of background and what's...?

So, the UK Reproducibility Network has a consortium of 24 members who are interested in accelerating the uptake of open research practices across the institutions.

And we are hoping to attain a goal of about 180, um, individuals trained in open research practices across the institution.

Mm-hmm. So at the moment, that's what we're talking about today, to try and encourage colleagues to come along and to, to volunteer, um, uh, to join that Train the Trainer programme. Um, I mean, perhaps tell us a little bit about who it's designed for, um, on who, you know, you're looking for to take part in this programme.

We're really excited because the programme accommodates both professional services colleagues as well as researchers. So it's quite flexible.

Um, and early research career researchers or more established researchers as well?

Early career researchers, PIs, research fellows, but, um, not PhDs

Ok, not PhDs

And um. So can you tell us a bit about when you're hoping we'll actually start with this and what the time commitment will be?

We do have our first training taking place on 25th September and, um, the last one later in December. And, um, we will have a couple of these sessions running from time to time.

Um. These trainings can run from one to three days, depending on what training it is. So there is no particular time or date set in stone. It just, they can redo these trainings over and over again. So you could have one day online and another one, you know, in person

And who delivers it then? It's not Leeds, is it, it's colleagues from the, the UK Reproducability Network?

We are looking to collaborate more with our colleagues in Leeds, but for now it's partners that we are collaborating with as the UKRN open research programme who are funded by Research England nationally and internationally.

Okay. So, um, you've already mentioned I think, you're looking to fill about 10 spaces, hopefully, if we can, so how should people, if they are interested, how should they get involved? Get in touch with you?

Well, yes, first they can get in touch with me, uh, through my email address, which I think will be linked, uh, to this. And they can also get in touch with Professor Daryl O'Connor.

Yeah. So Daryl O'Connor's our institutional lead, isn't he for the UK Reproducibility Network. So he's also someone that colleagues can speak to and if they've got any questions, they can again, speak to you or to, to Daryl as well about this as well. Um, and this isn't actually the first time we've run this programme, is it I don't think?

No, this will be our second cohort, yeah. Yes. Tell us a little bit about the first cohort. How did that go?

The first cohort had, um, about 8 members. The institution was unfunded at the time, so it was a little bit of a challenge. However, all the courses are free this time around, so we're expecting more engagement, more involvement from everyone.

I think it will be a huge success!

It might be just, I'm just thinking it might be worth just you and I sort of recapping why this programme was initiated and what we think the value of this is. 'cause we've spoken a lot, haven't we? You and I go out and train colleagues around open research, but we're generalists.

We don't know, um, the disciplinary details necessarily. So the idea of this, I think, is to bring in disciplinary experts and to liaise with them to understand what the barriers and benefits to open research are in specific disciplines. Is that fair to say?

Yes. I would say that is absolutely correct.

In our journey as open research advisers, we found that we could do things in a discipline specific manner or we could do things in a methodology specific manner. And I think that these trainings encourage that methodology specific, um, movement that we are trying to achieve at the moment. Some of these courses, you know, could appeal more to STEM or it could appeal to some colleagues who are in art and humanities and have a crossover in STEM.

So it's a really interesting way to enable collaboration between colleagues who don't even relate with each other on a daily basis and to also get creative with your work. Um, we also have the strategic objective, which we've been working towards, embedding open research in the institution, and I think amongst all of our initiatives, this is a really great way to collaborate on campus and outside of the campus to enable greater knowledge exchange.

Yeah and that first cohort, did they, um, anything to sort of report back on that? Did they enjoy doing it? The colleagues that took part in that?

I would say yes. You know, when it comes to open research, a lot of people do have the opinion that this is very Psychology centric.

However, we have had good reports coming back from other disciplines that it is useful, um, outside of psychology and STEM. And we also are looking forward to hearing more because in the first place we were only able to do the reproducibility lecture, but I am hoping that this particular suite of trainings will be more inclusive than the last one.

And so it's really just to say it's very wide ranging. I think, you know, we want colleagues, don't we, from a range of disciplines and a range of career stages, um, and hopefully to be interdisciplinary for colleagues to be able to work together.

Yes, I do hope so.

And what happens once those people are trained up then? They, um, they get some sort of recognition for that?

They are given certificates upon completion. So that means you do have to complete the courses, um, and you do have to go on to train other people. So you'll be provided a certificate upon your conclusion and you'll be given the title of Open Research Training leads.

Well, that's great. Thank you, Kikachukwu. So I suppose the, to give you the final words, what would you say to colleagues to, to encourage them to come and join this, this programme?

I would say please join the programme and share your views with us on how we can make this more inclusive and how we can make open research practices better applicable to you if you think that there are limitations, because that's what we are doing in our role. We're trying to learn and also make things better.

So, yes, please join.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So, uh, following on from my conversation with, uh, Kikachukwu, I thought it'd be really interesting to talk to, um, uh, an academic colleague, so I'm here today now with, um, Dr. Scott McLaughlin, who's Associate Professor in Composition and Music Technology based in, well, the School of Music, obviously.

And, uh, that's in, within the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Cultures. So, hello Scott and welcome to the podcast.

Thanks, Nick. Thanks for having me. Nice to be here.

So, as I say, um, just following on from the conversation I had with Kikuchukwu. So at the moment we're just trying to promote the next cohort of the UKRN Train the Trainer, programme. And you were, um, part of that first cohort, I think?

Yeah. I've been, uh, doing that this year. It's been really interesting to, to talk about this stuff with people across different faculties and with yourselves of course, getting, getting that bigger picture.

Because, um, one of the conversation, part of the conversation I had with, uh, Kikachukwu was that historically, um, a lot of the UKRN work, the UK Reproducibility Network, uh, sort of angle is, it is tended to focus on, you know, it's come from psychology and focused on social sciences, et cetera, but you are a musician.

Um, and I mean, perhaps you can tell us a little bit, first of all about your sort of academic background and, and your work before we get into sort of what open research means in that context?

Yeah, absolutely. So I, I currently work and teach and research in a School of Music. I, I don't come from quite the same kind of classical music background as, as some, but not all, but many of my colleagues.

So I, I was originally kind of like a, a shoegaze guitarist, experimental guitarist. And, and from there I became a composer working in all sorts of, of genres, doing a fairly niche kind of experimental music. I went back to university, did a PhD in that, and, and that avenue took me into what we now mostly refer to as practice research, which is essentially, and it doesn't have to be in the arts, it's a clinical thing as well. It pops up all over the place. But it's essentially where the, the key methodology, the key way of doing the research is through the practice itself. So in my case, the process of doing composition. Sometimes the process of performing and collaborating, et cetera, those are all the research process. And because of that, that means I'm also then involved a lot with non-traditional submission of outputs, that kind of thing.

Uh, which is a really interesting space to be in. And again, it's really interesting to see how other disciplines approach this. So with something like the train the trainer, then. I saw this as a really interesting opportunity to look at questions of things like reproducibility and open research, and both how is it done in other, uh, disciplines, like the disciplines that really started these conversations.

And then how does that come into my area, which is performing arts, humanities? How does it look for us?

Yeah, that, that concept of reproducibility is an interesting one. I mean, it's even in the name of the, obviously of the UK Reproducibility Network. And, um, I think, uh, I mean I've not actually seeing them myself, I don't think, but, um Kikachukwu has been more, been more involved with Train the Trainer, but there was some sort off the shelf resources I think that UKRN provided, which from conversations with you, I think did sort of focus, um, on reproducibility and that sort of side of things, which didn't really... you, you didn't relate to and it didn't sort of make that much sense in the context of your, your practice research?

It' s this, again, this is why I wanted to get into this, uh, as it happens before Train the trainer, I was involved with, um, the UK-PRAG network, which is the Practice Research Advisory Group. They did a session with the UK Reproducibility Network a couple of years ago where we sat down and said, well, what does reproducibility mean across psychology and, and the arts?

And, and that was quite interesting to be able to bounce, bounce these things around with these, um with people in psychology, but certainly when I first looked with some colleagues at the Train the trainer process it, it's interesting that slippage between open research and the very psychology based empirical data-based problems

So there's a... quite rightly, there's a lot of work being done in psychology and other empirical disciplines to try and deal with reproducibility, the reproducibility crisis, all of these issues that they've had, uh, kind of exploding in the last 10 to 20 years. What we tried to do then was take this word reproducibility and see, well, what does this mean in the arts?

Because we, we don't, particularly in something like my practice as a composer, I'm not doing the same kind of objective knowledge gathering that is happening in an empirical study. We have a much more subjective approach. And, and because of that, the idea of reproducibility in psychology, it doesn't map one-to-one across to us.

But at the same time, it's a really interesting conversation to say, well, what does, what does rigour mean for us when we're not doing these kinds of provable, uh, science, STEM based ways of doing research. So it's about looking at, uh, at how research has been done in the humanities and in the performing arts and just seeing how do these things map to try and get a universal understanding of what the these things mean in research.

So, sorry to go back to your original question. The original UKRN things were very focused on this reproducibility questions and making sure that methodologies and protocols and data were being done well. And we had a really fascinating time looking at this slide deck and saying, well, what things here can we just take and use as is in the humanities and performing arts, and what things do we need to actually have some conversations in our disciplines to say, well, what does this mean? Is, is this useful for us? Is this meaningful? Do we need a different version of this? And it's also then mapping it back up to, to more of your area.

Taking that quite small focused idea of reproducibility and going back up to what does it mean for open research in general. So I think for us it's more about thinking bigger than train the trainer in that it's more about thinking about what does open research mean in the humanities, that it's not just open monographs and open access and things like that. There's a whole bunch of other things.

Yeah, and it was quite interesting as well. Am I right in thinking there was, uh, another colleague of yours, another Scott, Banister, was he also on Train the trainer? So we had an interesting discussion. So one of the challenges, again, I just discussed a little bit with Kikachukwu is, you know, I've been thinking about, you know, we are generalists and we, we, we don't, don't know the necessarily the, the issues that relate to a specific discipline.

So we thought, you know, do we try and break it down on a disciplinary level? But even, but that doesn't necessarily work. So your colleague, Scott Banister, I think is a musician, but he's a, he's into the psychology of music. So for him, this all did make sense that sort of, that was his sort of research did map onto the sort of reproducibility side of things, whereas, uh, for you it didn't, even though you're both in the same school.

Yeah, and, and this, this is a classic institutional issue where just because you have a school of music doesn't mean that everyone in that school is doing the same type of research methodologies, et cetera. And while it's naive of me maybe to say that this is a bigger thing in music than maybe other humanities areas. I'm sure it isn't actually. This is just me speaking from my own area, but certainly within music, you can have people who do very traditional humanities work in archives, looking at little documents and translation, et cetera. You have people like Scott who are trained in the empirical methodologies of psychology.

They just do that methodology in the context of music. So something as universal as music. You know, we have music computational scientists, we have music data wranglers, we have performers. The entire gamut of epistemic and, and knowledge possibilities exist within our discipline. So that was really interesting from a train to trainer point of view.

'cause me and Scott had a lot of interesting conversations about our, our quite different perspectives on what could be done here and what was useful is then going, trying to go to our entire faculty of historians and linguists and fine artists and dramaturgs and media people, et cetera, and say, what, where are the pockets where people are doing this empirical research?

And, and they certainly exist. We've got corpus analysts in English and things like that who, who are absolutely empirical researchers. But they sit inside a humanities area, so it really exposes that this isn't just a STEM versus other things thing at all. That, that it really is horses for courses and trying to find what's the best fit for different places.

Yeah. And I think that for me, and perhaps for you as well as you've just been saying that, you know, that's the really interesting aspect to... an interesting aspect of open research is it does bring different disciplinary perspectives together in really interesting ways. And you learn from others in that way.

And it just reminded me, actually, there was an interesting, um, serendipity. Wasn't there with, uh, was some of your, uh, a, a composition of yours called the Garden of Forking Paths. Is, is that right?

That's an entire project with 10 or 15 compositions in it. Yeah.

But I, that actually means something else in statistics and, and open research that I sort of flagged to you.

I dunno if you remember. So, um, so which you'd had no knowledge of I don't think that, uh, I'd, I'd read it's quite, you know, any colleagues out there that know about open research will be familiar with that concept of Garden of Forking Paths to do with different decisions through, uh, statistical analysis and that kind of thing.

So it's just a quite a nice sort of serendipity with, uh, in a totally different context that you'd happen to use the same title. Um, and I think it comes from, Borges story, does it? I think as well?

Yeah. Yeah. That there is a Luis Borges story that that takes that as well.

It, it is one of those nice overarching concepts that can be applied in all sorts of interesting ways to things, but, but I think it is exactly as you say. It's interesting to think about it in that way that there isn't one open research, there isn't one reproducibility. There's, there's principles and, and then in fact, the open research thing that's really interesting is, is how it spawns a whole bunch of questions when you see what another discipline calls open research, and then you look at your own discipline and say, oh, actually we, we've, we've been doing something like that all along.

We just weren't calling it that. And sometimes it throws up really sticky problems, like particularly for someone like me, a composer or say a, a novelist or a poet who's also then dealing with external things like publication, non-academic publication. So they might have a novel out. How, how do you make open research out of something that's under a strict copyright in a commercial context?

What part of it do you make open? From a practice research point of view, it throws up all sorts of interesting questions. About how much of the process do you expose to other researchers? We composers are traditionally quite reticent to talk about their compositional processes, but if you're talking about knowledge generation, you really have to, the onus is on you as the artist and researcher to put stuff out there.

But the question is, how much do I film every day of myself and put three terabytes of video out that no one can sift through. Do I carefully curate something? It's a really interesting set of conversations.

Yeah. And then through this, and obviously we'll circle back around to train the trainer, but um, we were then obviously talking, Kikachukwu and I, and I had a chat with you, and the, is it, is he the Pro Dean, um, for research and innovation? Matthew Treherne in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Culture, because we've been working with the DoRis, and again, they're trying to learn this stuff. And as you've already mentioned, there's a whole range of stuff over there.

So we're still sort of thinking about that, aren't we? So, you know, there's sort of getting people up to speed with the infrastructure, you know, Symplectic and the White Rose repository and, uh, ORCiDs and all, and Scopus and all that kind of stuff. So we're doing a lot of work around that. Um, there is then, as you've already said, there's Corpus Linguistics or there's people actually working with large datasets, social scientists that perhaps the UKRN off the shelf stuff does work for.

So I think you are gonna do some training along those lines, aren't you? For, for colleagues in the faculty?

Yeah, we're trying to find those pockets of people for whom the stand, the existing standalone training is, is already gonna really be helpful for them. And then we need from there, we need to branch out and have other conversations about how we can be useful.

And I think as well, maybe the question for you partly is, where are the kind of sticks and carrots in all of this? Or are there places in the next few years where UKRI or REF or someone is gonna turn around and say, oh, this has to be open research, and suddenly our disciplines are gonna have to think about that.

So it's useful to try and get ahead of the curve a little on these things.

So that's kinda where we're starting, isn't it, within the faculty, with Matthew and with, um, the DoRis, the Directors of research and innovation in the faculty. Uh, and then you, we, you know, Kikuchukwu myself and, and you, continue to liaise perhaps on a workshop for the Faculty Research and Innovation Committee.

I think that was the suggestion, wasn't it, to consider some of, of the, you know, broader possibilities of open research in the faculty as a whole, thinking about diverse research outputs. You've already referred to that, and I did actually speak to Simon Hettrick on the podcast very recently, and I think you, you and I are both planning on going to the Festival of the Hidden REF, aren't we, in early October? So that's part of this discussion as well, the sort of broad range of research outputs. Um, and then I think the other thing that we wanted to talk about with some of the more difficult areas of research in the arts and humanities sort of, I know copyright issues. I mean, what are the, what sort of things might we need to think about there, do you think?

That's a difficult conversation that one, and in some ways we are, we're, we're, we're starting to dip into that with the existing things around open research strictures from REF, et cetera, around certain types of outputs having to be open research and the monograph, certainly in the humanities, the monograph question has been really back and forth, I mean, there's, it, it's a conversation partly outside of our control. It's lots of publishers, outside academia, et cetera. There's all sorts of questions going on there about, about how that will be done. That that's the question that's kind of live at the moment, and that, as you say, splits out also then into a lot of different types of, of practitioners.

I as a composer, for example, um, not concerned with copyright because I self-publish any, everything, and in my universe, most composers self-publish. There's a few that have publishing houses, but they're fairly, fairly small. Whereas I think for poets and authors, it's much more common to have a publisher of some sort and for them to have some sort of commercial relationship with the thing.

So there's questions about how much can we make open? How do we make things open? What is it? How do we get research insights out if we can't put the full artifact itself out there, the novel or whatever. So those are questions and, and I think those are the tip of the iceberg though. There's all sorts of questions from, say, say, archive scholars wondering about, well how, how do I make open the process of me walking into a dusty room and you know, taking tweezers out and looking at a 500 year old manuscript. What am I not doing that's open or what things need to be thought about more?

I think, as someone who's, as someone who's absolutely not in that area, I'm curious to know what kind of conversations have already happened around that. Maybe they already think that they're doing something that is, is as open as it can be.

Maybe there's room for something else. I simply don't know, but I think this is my point. I think there's a lot of conversations happening in small scales, but not a lot of national conversation that we can all tap into and connect.

Just a quick plug, I guess, the project that you've, um, just got funding for, I think with Westminster, is it Enact? Will that look at some of these issues?

Yeah. So this, this is a project to develop a national digital repository for practice research. It, it's going, it's gonna take a while. We have some funding now from the AHRC to proceed. The, the kind of basic development, the, the, the proof of concept version and to do a lot of co-design with community and talk to different disciplines about what this repository will be useful for.

We've already established the need through the Sparkle Project and the Pure Voices Project and the PRAG UK report in 21. There's, there's a lot of need for this, but the question is how do we actually implement it in a way that, that the community really wants to be involved with? So from an open research point of view, again, there's a certain amount of carrot and stick aspect to it. We, we think very much that practice research is a useful starting point here because we're already dealing with a lot of these issues around NTO s and trying to articulate, um, things outside of text, et cetera. So trying to deal with a, with a, with making open a lot of things that are traditionally closed in artistic practices.

Yeah. So that's the open research question is constantly live for us. How it will actually play out is another question, but I think the team at Westminster who are leading this, they've done some really excellent work already on a schema for how this can be represented in a repository. So, you know, the, the, we're opening the doors and then once those doors are open, then we have to look at users, talk to people who actually use this, do trials, do sandpits, see what it will actually get used for, and what problems and then conversations that throws up.

No, that's great. Thanks, Scott. I'm just a little conscious of time I could talk to you for, for a lot longer about this stuff. But just to sort of circle back to train the trainer, I mean by the time this goes out, uh, we're on quite a tight timescale to, uh, recruit the next cohort.

So I'll think there'll be another week, um, after this does go out. So. So, I mean, just to, would you encourage colleagues to get involved and, uh, you know, what would your message be to colleagues that are interested in, in learning about more about open research in their disciplines and, you know, getting involved with this Train the Trainer programme?

Absolutely. Like I said, I, I think it's a really, it's a space that I already was, was dipping into. So I think anyone interested in, in how open research might be done in their disciplines or, or already know a little bit about how it's working for them and their disciplines, but wanna see how it's done in other disciplines.

Yeah, it's a really, it's a really great programme and process because it opens you up to all of these discussions. And I think the more people we have from disciplines that are less obviously engaged with this, again, psychology for example, is very immediately engaged with this. It's a very live conversation for them.

It's a less live conversation in the humanities outside of open monographs, et cetera. But that's why we need more people involved in the conversation. More people talking to you and Kikuchukwu, et cetera, and just, just having, having this conversation spill out into disciplines more.

That's great. No. Well, thank you very much for, uh, your time, Scott, and, uh, I'll let you get on and, uh, yeah, look forward to working with you in the future.

Thanks for chatting, Nick. Really enjoyed it. Cheers.

Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. Please subscribe so you never miss out on our brand new episodes. And if you're enjoying the discussions, give us some love by dropping a five star rating and written review as it helps other research ISTs find us and please share with a friend and show them how to subscribe.

Thanks for listening. And here's to you and your research culture.